Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. City of Clovis

United States District Court, E.D. California

August 27, 2019

RAYQUAN RAY BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CITY OF CLOVIS, et al., Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

         Rayquan Ray Brown and Lafrance Ray Brown (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

         I.

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On April 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this action. (ECF No. 1.) Along with the complaint, Plaintiff Rayquan Ray Brown filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) On April 15, 2019, an order issued requiring Plaintiff Lafrance Brown to either pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (ECF No. 3.) On May 1, 2019 and May 3, 2019, the orders sent to Plaintiffs were both returned as undeliverable.

         On May 20, 2019, an order issued requiring Lafrance Brown to show cause why he should not be dismissed from this action for the failure to comply with the April 15, 2019 order. (ECF No. 4.) On June 3, 2019, the order sent to Lafrance Brown was returned as undeliverable. On June 10, 2019, Lafrance Brown filed a notice of change of address. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.) On June 12, 2019, the order to show cause was discharged and Lafrance Brown filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on June 27, 2019. (ECF No. 8.) On July 1, 2019, an order issued finding that Lafrance Brown had not adequately completed the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and he was ordered to file a long form application. (ECF No. 9.) On July 16, 2019, Lafrance Brown filed a long form application to proceed without prepayment of fees. (ECF No. 10.) On July 17, 2019, an order issued granting Lafrance Brown's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 11.)

         On July 18, 2019, a screening order was filed and Plaintiffs were ordered to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court that they were willing to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable within thirty days. (ECF No. 12.) On August 21, 2019, the order mailed to Rayquan Brown was returned as undeliverable. More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint or notice to proceed or otherwise responded to the Court's July 18, 2019 order.

         II.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).

         III.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Plaintiffs' Failure to Comply with Court Orders and the Local Rules

         In this instance, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is warranted on two separate grounds. First, Plaintiffs were ordered to file an amended complaint or notify the Court that they were willing to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable within thirty days of the July 18, 2019 order. More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint, a notice of intent to proceed on the cognizable claims or otherwise responded to the Court's order. Although Plaintiff Rayquan Brown's mail has been returned as undeliverable, Rule 182(f) provides that

Each appearing attorney and pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address or telephone number of the attorney or the pro se party. Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.